/lit/ - Literature

gnosticism is for brainlets who think they are smart

>>16113023
this is a literature board

>>16113023
because evil has its own positive essence. it isn't merely the absence of the good, but antithetical to it.

>>16113040
this is literatuer
>>16113061
it literally has no substance it only has an existence here

>>16113106
>it literally has no substance it only has an existence here

>it has no substance
>it has existence

which is it? this is why gnostics don't take privatio boni seriously. a non-existent thing can't have properties, end of story.

>>16113023
Several sects of Gnostics existed. In some the Demiurge is simply incompetent. Even if the Apocryphon of John, where Yaldaboath clearly is evil, his wickedness is the result of privation. He is an emanation from within the entirety that was thought out of balance (by Sophia without her consort), which is why he is malformed and exists outside the divine balance of the Pleroma.

None of the Gnostics were literalists, so take the cosmology as symbolism.

>Why didn't they just accept neo-platonism

neo-Platonism has its own wacky cosmology and there is no reason why it should be any more true. Let's not forget that the progression towards highee levels of abstraxt knowledge of the Good in the Symposium starts with wantinf to fuck adolescent boys. Gnosticism was centered around self reflection, meditation, and revelation, and the revelation was that this world was not just imperfect, but keeping people from enlightenment. Christ is at the center for Christian Gnostics and his appearance to save us implies a need for saving.

Not to mention that they came from Jewish or Christian roots and still drew off revelations there. You need to explain why the God of the Torah is imperfect, jealous, and violent. The starting point of material creation was still Genesis.

More importantly, if the world is innherently evil, why haven't gnostics killed themselves yet? You're just letting the demiurge win.

>>16113270
suicide belies an extreme attachment or aversion to life. gnostic suicide is a thing, though, but not an option for most, and certainly not the masses.

>>16113239
So this God himself is a wrongful 'privation' and evil simply is apart of it?
My friend said gnosticism has no agreement, that it's not really real, its just a much of contradictonary text wrote hundreds of years after without any real concept of a demiurge

>>16113239
> there is no reason why it should be any more true. Let's not forget that the progression towards highee levels of abstraxt knowledge of the Good in the Symposium starts with wantinf to fuck adolescent boys.
Wtf! I wonder how Damasciusfag will try to spin this one

>>16113270
> why haven't gnostics killed themselves yet?
because of the transmigration of the soul

>>16113304
they made no attempt at an orthodoxy, so there's nothing "contradictory" about it, just different elaborations of a core thematic/temperament.

>>16113376
affirmation that finitude is suffering is not the affirmation that finitude as suffering is evil.

>>16113270
Transmigration, your aeon/soul will just be recaptured in material. You need to attain Gnosis to escape the cycle and ascend.

>>16113304
Which God? The Entirety, or the creator of the material world.

The demiurgic creator is the bad one.

Gnostics is a later label for multiple sects across centuries so of course they don't all agree. They definitely had a clear idea of a Demiurge and key themes like the Pleroma and the idea of God as an Entirety outside the material world is what ties them together.

>>16113441
>According to Gnostic mythology (in general) We, humanity, are existing in this realm because a member of the transcendent godhead, Sophia (Wisdom), desired to actualize her innate potential for creativity without the approval of her partner or divine consort. Her hubris, in this regard, stood forth as raw materiality, and her desire, which was for the mysterious ineffable Father, manifested itself as Ialdabaoth, the Demiurge, that renegade principle of generation and corruption which, by its unalterable necessity, brings all beings to life, for a brief moment, and then to death for eternity.

Granted, this is the generic Valentinian take, but yeah sounds evil to me mane. Or at least a diabolically retarded godlet

>>16113125
evil only exists insofar as it is in existence, it is dependent, by itself it is nothing. not difficult to understand

>>16113239
>None of the Gnostics were literalists
lmao retard, MOST of them are literalists

>>16113523
No?

>>16113515
okay, you're just making statements, not arguments. I already told you my argument. If evil is a privation or a parasite, it can't have a positive essence and qualitative character all its own.

>>16113125
A substance can bring something into being.
That's the TLDR, evil only has existence as much as a mirage has existence.

>>16113544
so either that substance is Good, and Good brings Evil into being, or that Substance is neutral, and brings both Good and Evil into being, making Good a parasite of existence

Gnosticism is so cringe that it is expectedly becoming more and more popular. Terms like Demiurge, Pleroma, Bythos are not originally gnostic, they are literally greek words meaning what they mean, but obviously depressed 21st century edgy crypto nihilists are attracted to it, uneducated as they are.

>>16113535
and it doesn't have any of these on its own, that is why in order to exist it is dependent on a good (existence) which is self-subsistent (existence exists by itself, so self subsistent therefore good).

>>16113563
>Terms like Demiurge, Pleroma, Bythos are not originally gnostic, they are literally greek words meaning what they mean

Yeah, we know. So what?

>>16113525
yes their biblical readings are the same as if not worse than those readings from atheists

>>16113571
I know, I got it, I'm not convinced. You're just repeating yourself. If you don't think evil has its own character you're not paying attention.

>>16113577
read this post >>16113454
>They definitely had a clear idea of a Demiurge and key themes like the Pleroma
this is your average uneducated gnostic browsing 4chan

>>16113239
>None of the Gnostics were literalists, so take the cosmology as symbolism.
What a completely bullshit, milquetoast statement. You have no basis for this claim.

>>16113590
my argument is presented there, do you have anything else to say besides ''no'', ''im not convinced because i dont want to be convinced''?

>>16113592
yes, relative to each sect, they did have their own individuated understanding of what the Demiurge, Sophia, and Pleroma actually mean. is this so hard to understand? this scares the institutionalist.

>>16113601
You have no basis for the opposite claim.

>>16113602
Yes, evil exists in a conscious opposition to the Good, it counter-acts the Good, it isn't just the absence of it, a null state.

>>16113606
>institutionalist
what are you talking about you idiot, it is literally gnostictards who think they coined and own greek words when the same were employed by non- and anti-gnostics

>>16113619
do you know how to read? do you need any help?
read my post again, i didn't say what you are saying i said

>>16113619
>You have no basis for the opposite claim.
I haven't claimed anything, dumbass.

>>16113624
they didn't claim to have coined them, they consciously appropriated the terms and symbols of other traditions for their own uses. their inversions of these ideas are innovative though, they performed the first great transvaluation of the pagan and judaic cosmos.

>>16113061
>>16113239
>>16113288
>>16113304
>>16113525
>>16113535
>>16113577
>>16113590
gnosticucks coping hard

>>16113629
you fundamentally don't get the contours of the argument and just want to parrot privatio boni privatio boni.

I'll put it very simply for you: if it is possible for the Good to be depleted in the process of emanation, then the Good is the indirect cause of Evil. End of story.

>>16113646
i am literally arguing against privatio boni you dimwitted retard. the evil is not empty of the good because it has existence, holy shit just learn how to read

>>16113642
Do you have anything relevant to add at all?
Like...anything? Because it seems like your sole purpose in the thread is to act like a retard.
What your doing is the moral equivalent of walking into a group of people having a discussion, squatting down, and shitting your pants while screaming.
If that's you, then so be it I guess.

>>16113523
>lmao retard
>claim that runs counter to scholarly interpretations of Gnostic texts
Let's be real, which of these texts have you actually read. Books like Zostrianos and the Foreigner make it clear your supposed to be focusing internally, on ideas. They specifically specify focusing on meditation, and the Aeons are clearly not material beings.

The books that could be taken as a literal cosmology, such as the Apocryphon of John, also have these long discourses on how the Entirety exists and does not exist, and all the various ways it can't be described. The Barbēlō is obviously not coming from reflections of a magical "waterfall of life" that is around a Monad that is the only thing that is in existence at that point.

The point it to parallel the Genesis story, and it's even once removed as a story about that story with commentary interjected.

Why do people feel the need to act as smug authorities on things they obviously have very little knowledge of?

If you wanted to attack the Gnostics there are plenty of routes that are valid.

>>16113660
no that's what you're arguing, non-being parasitic on being, that's Plotinus 101 - matter's proximity to non-being as the principle of evil.

>>16113677
>evil depends on good
>privatio boni
>t-this is plotinus 101
this is the level of people falling for the meme of pop gnosticism

>>16113592
Damn dude, you're really having to cope hard.

I am well aware that those words' origins. They have a specific meaning in the context of Gnosticism and those concepts transcend multiple sects.

You know, like how you can have "enlightenment" as a general term, or be speaking about a historical period in European history. But when you reference "enlightenment" in the context of Buddhist sects you are talking about a different concept that they share and build off.

The original Greek for Pleroma and Monad are used in the Coptic translations, which is all we have for many Gnostic texts, which is a hint that they are all referencing a specific context.

This really isn't suprising, it happens all the time. You seem to be attacking concepts because they are new to you, and reducing them in your mind so you can feel superior.

>>16113675
>he approaches gnosticism dogmatically
kek
literal NPC

>>16113710
Plotinus doesn't believe in a self-existent principle of Evil, except as the principle of matter's receptivity to the One's light. He is a crypto-gnostic depending on how you read him. The Manichaean alternative is that Good and Evil are both self-existent.

>>16113601
No basis for what? No basis for the fact that a group of Christian and Jewish sects would want to base their cosmology in the central works of their culture?

I don't think it's much of a stretch man.

>>16113023
>a hodgepodge of random ideas slapped together by members of the Baniya doesn't add up and lacks any real spiritual quality

You don't say

>>16113624
>Gnostitards coined their own Greek words
The texts were originally written in Greek by Greek speakers you mong. Scholars kept the original Greek because when these works were translated the translators kept those terms in Greek, even in translations using different alphabets because they were using the word is a specific context.

This happens all the time in philosophy and religion. Plenty of Chinese characters in Jap Buddhism too

>>16113737
No, it was a heterogenous collection of men and women systematizing their personal intuition of the divine without the least concern for dogma. There's nothing more slavish than just parroting the thoughts of better men before you unto death.

>>16113730
i know, i am aware but he is right not because he is plotinus but because a self-existent evil is ilogical, self-existent evil would be literally privatio boni and from this not only a form of existence but existence itself would have no good, only evil which is not what existence is.

>>16113761
>The texts were originally written in Greek by Greek speakers you mong
holy shit can gnosticucks in this thread read? for real you cant be this stupid not to understand a simple post

>>16113766
no, even in Manichaeism, only Evil IN THE WORLD is parasitic of the Good (since the demons devour the Son of Light and expel his light particles through their seed), but Evil as a PRINCIPLE pre-exists the world.

self-existent evil is a realm of pure violence and laceration. a seething cannibalistic orgy of energy. self-existent good is a tranquil ocean of light.

either accept this, or accept that that beauty and tranquility can be diminished to the point that it unveils a potential for violence, death, and sexuality. this offends my intuition of the Good.

>>16113773
he's done the work, I've done the work, and let me tell you: you don't know what you're talking about.

>>16113760
Calling upon tradition is not parroting ideas, it's a solid foundation to enter into ones own initiation. Gnosticism claims no unique inspiration and nearly all of it's ideas already existed in the classical world, all gnosticism did was flip the intended understanding of the intuitions. In tradition the primordial chaos was something to be overcome in a continuous upward path, in gnosticism it is the primary good that one ought to return to.

>>16113716
Yes. Trying to read a text in the context of how it was meant to be understood is apparently "NPC" behavior now?

>>16113792
>accept that that beauty and tranquility can be diminished to the point that it unveils a potential for violence, death, and sexuality.
It obviously can, what world do you live in?
Have you ever gone outside?
This is what happens when you live with your nose in a book, you end up with an this absurd frilly philosophical framework that is completely at odds with the reality we actually find ourselves in

>self existent evil can't exist
I can tell you've never had to live in New Jersey.

>>16113795
>all of its ideas already existed in the classical world

A malevolent demiurge? Sophia as hypostasized autoeroticism? A savior who is one with the saved? A tragic rupture or Cut in the orderly procession of divine energies? The demonization of the planets and stars? The anthropocentrism of the pneumatic who alone can see the cosmic prison for what it is? I doubt it.

>In tradition the primordial chaos was something to be overcome in a continuous upward path, in gnosticism it is the primary good that one ought to return to.

This is wrong. The Pleroma isn't identified with Chaos. In the Origin of the World, the Chaos is mentioned as subordinate to the Pleroma, being the after-birth of Ialdabaoth. They set themselves in conscious opposition to pagan Chaos; they say it is the pagans who mistaken for believing Chaos was the supreme principle. I can even quote the passage if you like.

You have to do the work.

>>16113803
You're an NPC because you're insisting on referencing "authoritative" texts on Gnosticism when that's actually precisely the fucking opposite of what Gnosticism is about, and you're too dumb to notice.
There's a grotesqueness about an NPC of all things studying Gnosticism and then presenting it like it's just a bevy of historical factoids and using some kind of correspondence test to declare what is Gnosticism and what isn't.

The very concept of the Demiurge is the sole reason why I can't take Gnosticism seriously. Why do people commit atrocities? Demiurge. Why do human beings put aside the search for knowledge and engage in all sorts of meaningless hedonistic pleasures? That blasted Demiurge, of course. It's such a fucking cop-out that seeks to devoid humans of responsibility by putting it all in a single entity that is either incompetent or malignant. It's such a silly concept.

>>16113811
You're talking about duality, not dualism. The duality of finite good and finite evil is internal to the cosmic system, but that system itself is set in opposition to the eternal goodness of the pleroma, being itself a deficient creation.

If you really want to worship a Good whose essence contains the potential for everything evil, sick, and obscene about this life, be my guest lmao.

>>16113840
So you can't take Gnosticism seriously because of a strawman you built.
Big IQ

>>16113792
>self-existent evil is a realm of pure violence and laceration. a seething cannibalistic orgy of energy
sounds like what you'd find here in the world.

the problem is that you cannot conceive anything apart from what you see in front of you. like being, existence is uniform, and things that exist partake of existence, not existence partake of some beings, or in different ways.
things that partake of The Good is not The Good, good daimons, saints, gods are not The Good, but shares in it and because of The Good they are good.
Evil pre-EXISTING will exist and partake of the good regardless of it >being< evil, because it exists, has being.
im not at home and have not the time and patience to write pagraphs about it, but i really dont know how to make myself clearer for now. there is simply no discussion, you just dont want to see

>>16113840
No, what's silly and childish is making mankind responsible for cosmic evil, or that there is no evil outside of what men commit - meanwhile, billions of animals are being eaten alive right now, all in the name of the perfection of the Whole brooo *hits bong*

>>16113848
And what you worship is a figment of your own imagination, thus placing it firmly internally in the cosmic system.

>>16113852
Thank you for elucidating me, o wise Gnostic brother. Good luck uniting with the Monad by posting in a pedo website. Fucking larper

>>16113872
>insults others for posting on 4chan
>by posting on 4chan

>>16113856
Being is taken as the principle of Evil, non-being (understood as: what is OTHER THAN being, a supra-cosmic condition, not necessarily the negation of being) as the principle of the Good. You're operating on completely inverted premises and trying to take these traditions to task for it. They simply do not accept your premises. They do not accept Being is inherently positive, because it isn't. All creatures hunger, all creatures lack, or else they wouldn't be oriented towards the Intelligible Sun in the first place. Everything is already perfect before it came to be, it does need to be perfected.

>>16113867
lame rebuttal. you don't understand the tradition so you resort to these effeminate gaslighting tactics. yawn

>>16113551
That neutral substance is the Soul, which is also literally how Iamblichus defines free will, that is, neutral. Free will by its nature is Ineffable, you cannot logically deduce a real choice, if you could it wouldn't be Free. It's not chaos/random, and it isn't preordained, but inbetween. All things of the Soul is In-between.
Between time and eternity, between rest and change, between being and becoming, between the Indefinite and the Definite, between the Limited and Unlimited, both Mixed by these opposites but not merely just a composite, best described in one word as 'harmony'. A harmony that must be actively willed in order to not fall into either pole. Hence free will.

>>16113883
>am not religious
>insult a supposedly religious person for posting on a website full of what would be considered irreligious

>>16113893
>non-being (understood as: what is OTHER THAN being, a supra-cosmic condition, not necessarily the negation of being)
Complete and total gibberish.

>>16113900
This coming from the guy who ends his posts with the post-ironic "lmao" to denote emotional invulnerability and superiority. And I'm the one gaslighting?

>>16113893
>no akshually being is principle of evil, non-being principle of good!
>you're operating on inverted premises!
>being is evil because creatures hunger, therefore non existence is good, it was perfect not to exist!
and i was trying to discuss seriously with a person like this.

>>16113914
the difference is I can back up what I know, you can't. you start with memes, end with memes.

>>16113908
>The interplay between Being and the Other/Different allows the interlocutors to come to the conclusion that non-existence is simply the Other of Being, or contrast (Gr. antithesis).[7] This revolutionary decision is contrary to both the Sophists and Parmenides, who both claimed that non-being could not be. What “the Other of Being” means is that when someone says that something is not, what they really mean is that it is other than the thing is question and not that it does not necessarily exist. For example not-tall can mean short or the same height. Thus declares the Eleatic Stranger, while the genē of being are many, the genē of existent non-being are apeiron (infinite).

Read more.

>>16113023

Changing a name does not constitute an explanation.

>>16113926
No matter what mental gymnastics they use, Gnostics are always ultimately life-deniers with the same kind of atheistic retarded mentality that if suffering exists, then God bad. Not very -different from Ligotti-tier anti-natalists.

>>16113926
>if I just caricaturize his statements with green-colored text I win

memes on memes. none of you read.

>>16113947
life itself is anti-life, this is a statement you will never understand because you are a slave of the Demiurge. you are one of his children. just embrace it.

>>16113856
>the cosmos was always like this and it isn't because of collective misuse that horror infects the world leading to the end of the golden to silver to heroic to our age.
The soul isn't "mankind", as defined today, we aren't meant to be feeble and weak or mortal (nothing was mortal), we were literally gods. Our Arrogance lead to this, this is what the Atlantis myth is about, not some midwit idea of a civilization somewhere on earth.
Christianity is a mere glimpse of this travesty, but like Gnostics putting the cause of an outsider they put the solution on an outsider.
Only the old Way put the cause and solution on us.
(This doesn't mean we should become vegans, the times demands the strength of the times and this only comes from meat, although it does mean to eat meat honorably.)
Statesman and Critias.

>>16113962
There is no such thing as a Demiurge. This is a statement you will never understand because you are a slave of 4chan larping. you are one of it's children. just embrace it.

>>16113941
You haven't backed anything up. You're playing word games. Did you think your being non-being negation of being suprabeing is impressive to anyone? You come from the tradition of the worst types of charlatans and pseudo-spiritualists.

>>16113953
>caricaturize
literally quoted you verbatim, retard. but then an answer like this is your last refuge

>>16113962
the absolute state, if this is not a proof that all gnostics in 4chan are unironically retards not worth spending serious effort in discussions i dont know what is

>>16113834
I'm citing the actual holy books of the Gnostics you moron.

It's clear you just want a strawman to attack and haven't even read any of these though. This entire thread is on the same tier as "omfg, I chapter 1, a talking snake appears, hahaha Jews and Christfags btfo!!!"

I've noticed that people who want to "pwn newage faggot Gnostics" in this thread haven't cited a single Gnostic texts from which they are basic these opinions.

>>16113973
Whoops fused two sentences.
*the cosmos was NOT always like this and it IS because of collective misuse that it is

>>16113991
yes, you quoted me, and do you know what your response was? "umm sweetie that's not a good look"

>>16113988
It wasn't meant to be impressive, it was supposed to be a clarification, you only think it was me trying to show off because you're an insecure brainlet, like those retards who think people who just naturally speak fluently and eloquently are showboating.

>>16113840

You will find the casual chain is not so much Demiurge>Man but Man>Demiurge. "Breaking their backs to lift Moloch to Heaven" and such.

>>16113988
Read Plato's Sophist.

>>16114007
>the absolute state
>I cant even
>will you just LOOK at this?
>I can't believe this
>omg
>wow
>the absolute state
>look guys, wow, can you believe this shit?
>wow
>can't believe someone thinks this lol
>look guys

Seethe mongo

>>16113973
who are you quoting? how dishonest and unaware of your own actions you have to be to post a thing like this?

>>16114013
>lmao
>yawn
>i'm not showing off
Are you 15?

>>16114030
dog do you have anything to actually say about gnosticism based on your knowledge of the texts or am I just wasting my time?

>>16114009
Wow you're literally an NPC, what I said went in one ear and out the other.
I pointed out the massive glaring flaw in your approach and you short-circuited and doubled-down.

>>16114013
how do you want me to answer to your reply to my post, quoting you verbatim, saying you didn't say what you said

>>16114009
When I post pages of text some same guy tells me to offer my own arguments, without ever making an argument himself, so I'm now writing the same arguments New and Improved.
Although I'm not the guy you've been arguing with.

>>16113947
In what work do Gnostics say God is bad? It's all about how God is wonderous perfection and knowledge of God = salvation as far as I've seen.

>>16114027
>>16114012
Nobody, meant to quote something in the post but accidentally deleted it, all of that is my post but read the first sentence as the opposite of what I wrote

>>16114046
I have plenty to say but unfortunately I haven't found you worthy to engage with on a serious level. I know you find yourself highly impressive but to be quite honest I find you lacking. I would have taken you seriously if you had the heart to acknowledge your own contradictions but you're more concerned with presenting yourself as some kind of ascended being. The self-contentedness reeks of flatulence.

>>16114057
here's what you did: "wow he said life itself is anti-life, wow I can't believe someone thinks this, let's all point and laugh. checkmate fag."

>>16114073
It's the logical conclusion of your God willing an evil entity into being.

>>16114075
>more effeminate projection and reading narcissism into everything

yawn, then leave.

>>16114077
i wrote different posts showing how all your points were logically inconsistent and taken from a superficial mundane point of view, utterly anti metaphysical and anti spiritual, sounding exactly like someone who has just gotten into ligotti. your reply in the end was a capricious statement saying ''shut up life is not life it is anti life''.
and you want me not to laugh at you

Gnostic fags are complete larpers. Read any philosophical text and it btfo gnosticism

>>16114124
ok bro I'll get right on it

>>16114122
I specified that you're working off faulty premises about what gnosticism is, they don't acknowledge Being as inherently good or positive, and you still don't get this very simple point.

>>16114047
The Foreigner, Zostrianos, Apocryphon of John, etc. are expert opinion on the Gnostics, those are Gnostic holy books...

Or to not be an NPC are we just supposed to magically Intuit things about Gnosticism with our non-NPC megabrains and make judgements based off of skimming Wikipedia and 4chan threads?

Gnosticism. Stoicism. How about you guys just become Catholic instead?

>>16114145
>they don't acknowledge Being as inherently good or positive
and i addressed how ilogical this is

Spinoza annihilated Gnostic LARPers over 300 years ago.

>>16114083
I'm what Gnostics text do we see God willing the demiurge into being?

(The demiurge isn't even presented as evil in all texts, just flawed).

Actually, you really need to differentiate between Sethian Gnostics, early Christians Gnostics, and other groups. It's not a very accurate term.

>>16114152
Gnosticism, Christianity, Buddhism. How about I'm doing none of em?

>>16114157
No, in fact you didn't.

>>16114159
by publishing what amounts to a mathematical proof for an immanent god responsible for the eternal processes of generation and decay, hmm yes gnosticism btfo

>>16114124
Which one would you recommend?

>>16114083
the demiurge isn't willed into being by the highest principle in any of the texts, in fact Sophia is a hypostatization of the fact that what she did was counter to the divine will

>>16113840

You will find that the causal chain is not so much Demiurge>Man but Man>Demiurge. "Breaking their backs to lift Moloch to Heaven" and such.

>>16114146
>we just supposed to magically Intuit things about Gnosticism with our non-NPC megabrains
Uhh...yes?
Did you think Gnosticism has a central dogma?
What exactly do you think Gnosticism is?
It's a group of sects who say that salvation is achieved through gnosis. That's literally why they are called Gnostics. As opposed to (now) orhodox christianity which says salvation is achieved through faith.
I could start my own Gnostic sect and develop my own cosmological system right fucking now and there isn't a thing you could do about it, and it would have just as much legitimacy as any of the others. For all you know, I have the gnosis that you've been "studying."
You would piss and moan about how it doesn't correspond to some text you read because you're a hylic who lacks the divine spark.

>>16113903
>>16113973
>tfw my effort postd are irrefutable
>tfw my effort posts are ignored, feels bad man
You want me to post paragraphs of quotations instead?

>odd are those who attribute evil to the heavenly bodies, simply because those things participating in them sometimes turn out evil. For there would never have been any such thing as participation in the first place, if the participant had not some divergent element in it as well. And if it receives what is participated in as something other and different, it is just this element (the one that is other) that, in the terrestrial realm, is evil and disordered.
It is participation, then, which becomes the cause of the proliferation of otherness in secondary entities, and also the intermingling of material elements with immaterial emanations, and further, the fact that what is bestowed in one way is received by the things of this realm in another way. For example, the emanation deriving from Saturn tends to pull things together, while thatderiving from Mars tends to provoke motion in them; however, at the level of material things, the passive generative receptacle receives the one as rigidity and coldness, and the other as a degree of inflammation exceeding moderation. So then, does not what causes decay and want of symmetry come about through the differentiating, material and passive deviance of the recipients? And further, since the feebleness of the material and earthly realm is not able fully to take in the unsullied power and pure life-force of
aetherial entities, it transfers its own vulnerability to the primary causes; it is as if a sick person, who was not able to bear the life-giving heat of the sun, dared falsely to accuse it, because of his personal problems, of not being useful for health or life. Something of the same might be seen to come about in respect of the harmony and blending of the universe, in the sense that the same
things might be salutary for the universe as a whole by reason of the perfection both of what is present in it and that which they are present in, while they might be harmful to particular parts by reason of the lack of symmetry characteristic of that level.

>>16114181
Ah, so the Good isn't free?
>in any of the False texts

>>16114159
How so? Quote?

>>16114194
yes, the Soul is a neutral principle positioned between Good and Evil. just like the Sethians say it is, see: the Paraphrase of Shem.

>>16114170
Kant

>>16114203
it isn't omnipotent, no, only within its own essence.

>>16114229
wait until these rubes get told about the similarities between the transcendental subject and divine syzygos.

>>16114256
What until you actually go outside and struggle to pick up a heavy object

>>16114267
I have, so I officially give you permission to feel btfo'd

Just because something isn't good doesn't mean it's bad. Platonists are retarded, that's about it.

>>16114124
philosophy is gay

>>16114233
How awfully not perfect, can't even say that of the World Soul which is at least five degrees removed from the Good.
Read pic related and what follows, alright don't read pic related internet so slow captcha fails before it uploads: Enneads 6.9 (39)

>>16114356
The good's omnipotence is sacrificed for its internal consistency. I'll take a Good that is truly good over a sorta-kinda-Good responsible for evil.

>>16114225

>>16114385
>>16113973

>>16114397
You're just naive is you think humanity is responsible for millions of years of evolutionary history. This is why people believe the Abrahamic God is the God of civilization, you seem incapable of thinking beyond your anthropocentric horizon

>>16114169
Spinozism is utterly incompatible with Gnosticism, which requires for you to believe in wacky transcendent deities and hold good and evil to be real.

>>16114437
I immediately feel an impulse to become violent whenever someone starts suggesting that good and evil are not real.
Be thankful that you and I are not in the same room right now.

>>16113033
you are doing this right now

>>16114437
Only if you can't synthesize different traditions into your own personal system.

>>16114448
Succumbing to the violent urges of the o so dreadful Yaldaboath, eh?

>>16114466
Nah, people who deny evil exists are children or evil themselves

>>16114385
We have always existed.
We being the One-Being, are in our substance the Power of Harmony, God never fails but in eternity and mystery of Freedom but also the beauty here, there we willed to peek outside the World of Worlds, to experience our works, for this is beautiful, but we saw our works beget beauty as-well and this too we wished to live, lower and lower with each step we glorified the perfect worlds, but now in Time and the beyond Olympus so high and far away, to maintain the Noetic vision and keep our own unity with each passing moment, grew more and more difficult, in truth it is still curious innocence that leads us now taking on 'lowest matter' as our body, in that instance, against the warnings of our better self, even in spite of strange but familiar echoes of memories of regret from so long ago—We drank of forgetfulness.

>>16114496
The light did not incline itself downwards, it's you who slander God by imputing all these deficiencies and weaknesses and temptations to him.

>>16114517
>I am illiterate

>>16113023
That's metaphysics for you. Their whole effort was trying to make sense out of the OT along with the message of Jesus. If it sounds incoherent, it's because Jewish metaphysics are incoherent by default.

>>16113515
The exact same thing can be said about what you call good. All you do is repeat something you read on Thomas Aquinas.

>>16114535
Oh, sorry, "curious innocence". Formally, the movement is the same. It's all semitic/hermetic hogwash.

>>16114564
never read aquinas, but you could read the rest of my posts explaining why good dependent on good is nonsensical, right?
>>16113571
>>16113856

>>16113239
It's not just that. The whole construction might be a metaphor for secret doctrine they taught in schools.

>>16113304
What is God? What is evil? Why are you trying to debate something you didn't even try to comprehend on the most basic level?

>>16113523
>>16113601
The whole idea of gnosis is knowledge that goes beyond acquired knowledge. That's why it's called gnosis and not simply philosophy. What an ass. Why do you need basis for something that is clearly obvious?

>>16114475
Thread literally turning into people arguing over completely different ideas of what evil is but thinking you all mean the same.
When Platonist talks about evil you can literally change the word into "lowest/least good", as in lowest matter, but evil to them is also the willing towards this matter, in your soul placing it as the highest good, aka materialistic hedonism. The temptation is in fact good, because will can always, no matter how strong the temptation, will not to. The true Sage and divine soul has had the hardest temptations. The temptation is also our own Energy see >>16114496, thus one could even call this second evil a spiritual pedophilia, also why Plato prohibited pederasty, the student is like a molded beautiful statue born from midwifery, to engage in degeneration with your disciple is then more than just one type of 'pedophilia'. It is to fall.

>>16114606
You didn't read Aquinas, but now you know the source of your ideas. There's no good without evil and no evil without good. If you can refute that, go ahead.

>>16114464
You sound like those people who desire to "synthesize" Nietzsche and Christianity, get a grip. You're not some enlightened eclectic, you're just a moron who doesn't understand either philosophy. I will never understand this boards fetish for combining things in order to look as esoteric and innovative as possible.

>>16114634
this is so tiring you all repeat the same thing insistently like a child when i already posted why all things are inherently good and how self-subsistence is good per se.

>now you know the source
no you midwit, it is from dionysius (by whom aquinas was heavily influenced on par with aristotle). you are a child. a child.

>>16114475
Read Nietzsche, Deleuze and Spinoza. There is only Composition and Decomposition.

>>16114659
So systems can't have influences, or I can't incorporate the understanding of others into my own. Ok dude

>>16114670
>become another card-carrying, midwit cultist of ceterritorialization

I'm good. Been there, bought the t-shirt, ate the burger.

>>16114671
How exactly are you going to go about combining Spinoza and Gnosticism, and more importantly why would you even want to? It's a total reach and reeks of attention grabbing for the sake of novelty.

>>16114660
All your posts are absolute garbage and full of aprioristic fallacies. Just respond this with yes or no: Is there good without evil or evil without good? Give practical examples you experienced in your own life.

>no you midwit, it is from dionysius (by whom aquinas was heavily influenced on par with aristotle). you are a child. a child.
Which Dionysius got from the Vedas? You are a child, a child.

>>16114698
Spinoza's system qualifies as a fantastic description of the immanent God of the cosmos, who I identify as the demiurge. All he knows is the univocal production of forms. Spinoza reduces God to nature, nature to God, does not recognize a transcendent reality reigning above it all. Kinda like the demiurge. He just offers a way of formalizing what's implicit in the mythology.

To all the idiots debating evil in this thread, the "evil" of the Demiurge is his ignorance about himself. It's not the evil you're thinking about. Just read the damn manuscripts.

>>16114735
Not if you're a Manichaean or Sethian, their Demiurge is out-and-out satanic

>>16114730
>kinda like the Demiurge
No actually, kinda not like the Demiurge at all.

>>16114747
>n-nuh

Because you're a literalist brainlet who thinks on rails. Go play with your boxes and leave the chad system-builders to it.

>>16114702
>Is there good without evil
yes, this is what self-subsistence implies

>evil without good?
no, this is what dependence means

>Which Dionysius got from the Vedas?
what the fuck are you even talking about lol

>>16114808
>yes, this is what self-subsistence implies
Have you, in your life, experienced any substance in itself?

>no, this is what dependence means
Have you ever experienced dependence in itself?

Say yes or no.

>what the fuck are you even talking about lol
You are a child, a child.

>>16114761
Ah yes, a budding 4channel system building philosopher with a well of knowledge pertaining to Gnosticism and Spinoza prepared to write a striking synthesis and pave the way for future study in the area.

>>16114730
Quality post.
>>16114747
Actually, just like the Demiurge envisaged by this Beserk anon. I think it's apt.

I don't buy pantheism, but I think pandemiurgism actually makes sense. The only part of us that isn't a part of the demiurge is our "light," our Atman.

The world of Prakrati is the flesh of the demiurge.

>>16114840
Not the guy you are replying to but philosophy isn't a video game engine you create something on. It's your life. You create your own system. You don't Spinoza or anyone. You learn from them and evolve.

>>16114830
am i talking to the same person or are you just being dishonest again making these empty empirical retorts when we are dealing with concepts and metaphysical claims?

tell me what dionysius has to do with the vedas, i'm really curious

>>16114853
Also a cap I feel is relevant to this based GnostoSpinoza concept.

>>16114840
It really doesn't matter what you think. I don't want to play alphabet blocks with you nerds.

>>16114868
Since you don't want to respond because you're coward I'll just put it out for you: you're talking names. You don't even know what they mean. You're just an idiot repeating formulas. Where's your experience? Be a man and say it.

>tell me what dionysius has to do with the vedas, i'm really curious
Look up and ye shall find, child. Oh, child. Absolutely ridiculous.

>>16114858
>you create your own system
Philosophy is not personal. If you want to create a system go ahead, but don't expect people to take you seriously when you can't even justify it. That anon is a prime example of a pseud who throws around concepts and attempts to combine disparate ideas for the sake of novelty.

>>16114735
there is no codified conception of the demiurge among all gnostics, they have wildly different ideas about it.
Do you realize that some Gnostics even thought that Jesus failed his mission and that the demiurge actually received gnosis from him?

>>16114910
I forgot to mention his citation of 4chan posts to justify his "philosophy".

>>16114910
>Philosophy is not personal.
Of course it is. It HAS to be. Otherwise, why are you wasting your life on it? Just to publish an academic paper? Is that the reason why Socrates lost his life?

>That anon is a prime example of a pseud who throws around concepts and attempts to combine disparate ideas for the sake of novelty.
If you admit a person that thinks for himself is a pseud it is because you see yourself as a pseud.

>>16114910
>can't even draw on his vast knowledge of Spinoza or gnosticism to explain the inconsistencies, of which there are bound to be some
>shrinks away from tackling these inconsistencies like a child, falls back on the soft, downy pillow of authority

Every time.

>>16114892
you are the one who has no idea what self-subsistence is and what is implied in dependence, for this reason i have to repeat their relation with good and evil and their interrelation.

respond what? i responded to your question here >>16114808

we are talking for 3 hours and you presented nothing, said no substantial thing apart from accusing me of what i didn't say or do, now you appeal to this empiricistic mindset. i am able to experience good and evil insofar as i exist.

you know i am talking about dionysius the areopagite, right?

>>16114939
Blah, blah. You keep repeating concepts you read somewhere. I want to know your personal experience, show it to me. Where's evil without good and good without evil EXISTENTIALLY?

>>16114910
What you don't understand is not that I'm saying Spinoza was a gnostic, in conversation with gnosticism, or that if he knew about it he would be, I'm saying that if you buy the idea of a deficient creator God identified with this immanentizing tendency ("There is no God but me"), then Spinoza's system qualifies as a great description of that tendency

>>16114932
Socrates lost his life precisely because philosophy is NOT personal. >>16114933
Spinoza is an immanent monist, the goal of the gnostic is escape from the material world through Gnosis. I think even you might be able to piece together why it's a dumb fucking combination. You would be better off just calling it a combination of pantheistic tendencies with Gnosticism.

>>16114953
He doesn't have any he's a smug bugman

the demiurge is posting ITT

>>16114956
>Spinoza is an immanent monist

Yes. I know. Spinoza isn't a gnostic, but his system qualifies as a good description of what the Demiurge as an immanent God looks like.

>>16114953
>>16114957
you are all on a loop where i present a solid demonstration of my claims and the nonsense of your own beliefs (in the crudest sense of the word) and you repeat the same things without any argumentative contestation.
thank you for proving all my points with your dishonesty! and i dearly hope you to go back from this path of nescience, this is what i get from most gnostics, they hate evil but they wallow in it, they refuse knowledge.
farewell

>>16114956
>Socrates lost his life precisely because philosophy is NOT personal.
So he killed himself because he wanted people to write good stuff about him and not because it was his resolve that solidified as experience through his whole life until it became a system that could be somewhat passed beyond? Philosophy has to start as personal experience so that it can become something that can be taught later on. Otherwise, how could it ever start?

>>16114977
But the Demiurge isn't Immanent? If he creates the world he has to also have a Transcendent aspect in relation to it (like Numenius points out).

Why does it seem that Gnosticism has been growing in popularity on this website and some parts of the internet? Is it just that the concept of the demiurge is appealing to cyinical/depressive people?

>>16114981
I know you'll still read this because you're mad as fuck so have at you: all you can do is repeat like a parrot. Nothing you said is part of your experience. You accumulate concepts and think you're hot shit. Guess who is dishonest? You, with yourself. Your whole life is a waste of time. Congratulations.

>>16115023
>Is it just that the concept of the demiurge is appealing to cyinical/depressive people?
Yes. Also Persona 5.

>>16115023
Because Buddha was right all along and people are starting to realize this.

>>16114997
Don't waste your time. I know his type If you read philosophers and make unorthodox connections, you're tarnishing their work. If you fly 100% solo, you have no grounding in the tradition and can't be trusted to contribute to it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Better to just make a bunch of superficial connections with colored yarn and get tenure for it.

>>16114997
>because he wanted people to write good stuff about him
nobody has ever implied that, why do you assume that is what I mean by the impersonality of Philosophy. Do you think that Science or Logic are impersonal? What about epistemology?

>>16115021
The Demiurge is the principle of the immanent productivity of nature - forms getting shat out, forms getting ripped back in. No analogical ladder to God, no transcendence, just a pure, flat univocity of intensities jostling for dominance. Just like... wait for it ... Spinoza's God (at least if you bring Deleuze with you).

>>16115023
Its a huge LARP for midwits who want to attach themselves to a superficially intellectual aesthetic. Do Gnostics themselves actually buy into the retarded fucking mythology? I think not.

>>16115053
I fail to see where Gnosticism fits in here beyond your using the word Demiurge to describe a certain interpretation of Neo-Spinozism. How can the Demiurge be the Principle of Nature and have no Transcendent dimension?

>>16115046
Why would anyone lose his whole life thinking about stuff if it has absolutely no merit for his own life? In this world there are two typed of people: geniuses who get it for themselves and idiots that repeat what geniuses say. Academics are the second type because repeating earns them a job. Which one are you?

>>16115095
Nobody said anything about repeating or being a dogmatist, but creating systems with no justification willy nilly is even worse. Philosophy as a Science is what drove Socrates to die for it, not Philosophy as a personal self-help for you to create your own meaning.

>>16115125
>not Philosophy as a personal self-help for you to create your own meaning
If you can't help yourself, how can you help others?

>>16115082
Not him, but I think it's fairly obvious. Spinoza's God is only the God of all that is material.

If you combine Spinoza's substance monism, with the a dualistic perspective that acknowledges the existence of forms, that would make Spinoza's God an apt description of the material demiurge.

>>16115082
Because it is, properly, the principle of immanence: the denial of a metalanguage of value ("There is no God but me = Good and Evil are just terms for specific types of interactions between bodies in a univocal field = all force is justified just for being force = there are only power relations"). What the gnostic does is present himself as a bearer of that metalanguage, ie because I am able to condemn this world of violence, there must exist a principle grounding my knowledge of this world AS a world of violence.

>>16115147
Maybe if we take Kant and assume we can really know Noumenal objects his philosophy would be great at describing Mysticism! Fuck yeah I love synthesizing shit man, this is fun!

>>16114981
>farewell
that's right, retreat bitch

Brainlets can't seem to be able to respond to Gnosticism. Either you get people dismissing it as "new age" while simultaneously revealing they have a cursory understanding of Gnostic texts (at best), or you get people who took at best a few undergrad courses in philosophy sperging out about "Nooooooo! That's not what Plato said! You can't contradict Plato. If you have ideas that intersect with Plato but don't represent his work verbatim you fail the test."

>>16115023
>Why does it seem that Gnosticism has been growing in popularity
because more and more people experienced divine insight during their childhood and had revelatory experiences

>>16115170
I don't follow that one, lol. You can't just invert concepts and expect to have something that makes sense of the world.

Kant's schema though, and their coorelates in how visual processing actually works (per neuroscience), can be altered through drugs, practice, etc. In this way, mysticism could be a way to shape the phenomenal world.

But really, we aren't really interested in the noumenal world because it is itself part of the material field, and what is that field but the body of Samael.

>>16115234
It was a joke.

>>16115277

>>16115277
I know, but now you see why you can't just throw concepts together. Rather, older concepts need to be revisited in light of higher, encompassing discoveries.

Kant and Spinoza are good places to start, but if you want to understand the greater mysteries of existence, you'll need to continue on to the study of the Ogdad and Neogenesis Evangelion.

>>16115277
There are gnostic interpretations of Kant. Read: gnostic that take into account Kant's picture of things, what he says about the human mind and how it is pre-disposed to receiving and synthesizing experience.

>>16115351
Didn't Kant initially took Swedenborg very seriously just to roast him completely later on?

>>16114702
>Which Dionysius got from the Vedas?
You're both retarded, Plato is the answer, or more directly Plotinus. He then influencing the Cappadocians who influenced Ambrose and Dionysius, with Ambrose influencing Augustine.

>>16114590
>god never fails

>>16115378
If he's all good and all powerful, yeah.

>>16115181
>You can't contradict Plato.
You
Can't
Contradict
Plato
Un fucking ironically.
Literally a spotless window into the Abaton.
This, if anything, is also where Proclus faltered, he held the now mostly lost Chaldean Oracles as equal to Plato and even once dared to correct Plato with them if I remember. That they are fragmented (like the gnostic texts) is light of reasonable doubt from above.
And no you can't use this to defend the Bible which was actively preserved by a powerful organization, same with Quran. Plato was preserved in-spite of the corrupt world.

>>16115439
Also
Chaldean Oracles (genuine but not as great as plato) is the basis for the majority of gnostic bullshitters.

>>16115467
Not even on the list of major influences. The other guy was right, none of you have more than a wikipedia-tier grasp of these ideas.

>>16115359
You can't demonstrate that either. It's more likely he got his idea of agnosia from somebody who learned from somebody who learned for a Hindu source.

>>16115439
And where did Plato get his ideas from?

>>16115495
Socrates

>>16115486
Majority if not all Upanishads postdate Plato, go fuck yourself desu. That Mahabarata or whatever probably hadn't even been written yet, Buddha had just been invented, basically only the four Vedas and jain teachings, and maybe those semi-hedonists, existed by the time of Plato.
Out of India schizos, if anyone can be, are worse than Gnostics.
You win Gnostics, by merely being better than this idiot
Dionysus is probably the inspiration of the book which the bhagavad Gita is a part of, abd brought with him the more clear Monarchian theology already long present in Egypt (at least 3500BC)

>>16115538
>Majority if not all Upanishads postdate Plato
Not according to Hindus themselves.

>That Mahabarata or whatever probably hadn't even been written yet, Buddha had just been invented, basically only the four Vedas and jain teachings, and maybe those semi-hedonists, existed by the time of Plato.
Source: yourself.

>Out of India schizos, if anyone can be, are worse than Gnostics.
More schizo than you? I don't think so.

>Dionysus is probably the inspiration of the book which the bhagavad Gita is a part of, abd brought with him the more clear Monarchian theology already long present in Egypt (at least 3500BC)
Yes, you are more schizo than Gnostics themselves. Congrats.

>>16115535
Looks like Socrates had one hell of a secret doctrine. Where did he take it all from?

>>16115495
Dunno if the post I wrote vanished by I can't see it so
>Orpheus, Egyptians, Diotima, Parmenides, Socrates, Heraclitus, even mad Empedocles—all prophets (as in inspired) in their own right, Plato bring their culmination and completion, everything after Plato is mere clarification and additional arguments. Plotinus of course also divinely inspired.

>>16115609
I'd say Egyptian mysticism is probably his biggest inspiration but who the hell can prove that if those secret schools left nothing behind.

>>16115170

>>16115569
An Dagda, Sabazios, Osiris, Dionysos, Liber, Adonis, Horus of the Two Horizons.
>The Lord says that He incarnates Himself in every millennium.

>>16115623
If you made a book of all hieroglyphic hymns and poems it would be many multiple thousands of pages.
The connection is overwhelming if but read a tiny bit of them.
I recommend the Coffin Texts since these aren't Pharaoh centric.

>>16115181
lol, case in point

>>16115439

>>16115538
Theory of Forms pre-dates Plato and existed in Egypt long before him.

Where did Egypt get the idea?

I'ma go with Seth.

>>16115786
>Seth invented the their of forms.
Holy fuck, Platofags btfo! Seth for the win.

Actually, Genesis already has this as each animal and thing is brought out "according to its kind" and the creation is finalized with Adam naming them.

Of course we now know the Mosiac texts were corrupted and that the older Sethian texts tell it true.

Adolescence is Gnosticism. Adulthood is Hermeticism*.
>*actual Hermeticism, not Neo-"Hermetic" Kybalion trash

>>16115809
>The creation is oppressive and you must transcend reality vs the creation is good and you must change reality
Sounds like a mood swing for me.

>>16115023
I may sound tinfoil but Gnosticism in it's subdued/concealed forms has always been popular. Gnostic-like thinking and nature-hatred has a unbroken linage from certain pre-Protestant heterodox Christian sects, to Calvinism/Puritanism, to it's modern and secular form in political leftism. Most of history can be summarized as an eternal war between Saturnian and Gnostic forces with the Gnostic side always wins as a societal-spiritual manifestation of entropy.

>>16115984
gnosticism isn't entropic

>>16115994
Care to elaborate?

>>16116008
I'm just not sure what you mean by gnosticism being a spiritual manifestation of entropy, that's the Saturnians and their ilk

>>16116015
If you attribute Saturn to the Demiurge/Creator, then it would be the exact opposite of entropy unless you are working with some contrarian definition of what "entropy" means, like your doublethink types tend to do. The last thing a creator wants is his creation slowly disintegrate into nothing.

>>16116086
local order contributes to global disorder. Life already is a phenomenon of entropy, life already is a phenomenon of this creation's death-spiral.

>>16115984
Gnosis is just a name for a natural human ability to know naturally things they know. The Hindus had the concept of jnana much before it hit Greece or Egypt or anywhere else. It's a yogic practice that is probably just as old. There's nothing magical or obscure about it, you just have to drop your mind. The eternal battle between Saturnian and Gnostic forces is happening inside you right now.

>>16116100
Entropy only continues during expansion. The Big Crunch will once again impose order on the system. This is how we are encased in the material world, Yaldaboath's body eternally, chained by the laws of causality.

At best we can hope that at some point in this cycle our Atman can.recognize aspects of the Monad.

>>16115984
>Most of history can be summarized as an eternal war between Saturnian and Gnostic forces with the Gnostic side always wins as a societal-spiritual manifestation of entropy.
This is what the graphic novel "The Invisibles' is about, the same comic which the Wachowski trannies loosely based 'The Matrix' on

>>16116100
So basically you are working on doublethink definitions of what "entropy" constitutes, got it.
Only a Gn*stic would attribute life to being "entrophic" in any sense of the word. You cry about things dying (which, by the way, is somewhat a symptom of being in a post-Eden/Golden Age world, a world wrought by your envoy, the serpent Azazel/Christ) so you call for extinction.
>local order contributes to global disorder.
What do you mean by "local" and "global"?
>>16116235
I'm speaking of Gnosticism the religious movement.

>>16116235
This is why Yaldabaoth is a lung, just the constant systole/diastole of an idiot God.

>>16116328
If I clean my room, the decrease in entropy is counteracted by the heat I dissipate into my surrounding environment. Now apply that on a civilizational scale. What do you think a mass surveillance society is doing? Making things predictable. Maximum predictability is maximum death. What's more predictable than a corpse?

We don't call for extinction, we call for extraction.

>>16116364
not him but what is this extraction? what does it mean and what are its consequences

>>16116395
It depends on the precise nature of the world as the person envisions it, but the idea is that these material systems require pneuma to animate them (which we might define as the threshold that, once crossed, makes a system self-referencing loop). Deprive the system of pneuma, by forgoing the burden of complexity, and you crash the cosmic prison. Another way to put it is: the goal isn't to integrate with the cosmos, but to extract yourself from it (or even conversely, to expel Darkness like a necrotic shit).

>>16116431
big yikes

>>16113023
whatevers the flaws it comes closest to me to ring true about why this reality is the way it is.

>>16113270
because we 'are' the demiurge and incarnation is the only way to escape the trap.

>>16114166
Buddhism is just Gnosticism without all the cringy resentment.

>>16113033
In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any phony demiurges blessing but because I am enlightened by my own knowledge